Skip to main content

About your Search

Search Results 0 to 16 of about 17 (some duplicates have been removed)
say the raid targeted a weapons convoy headed for members of hezbollah, an ally of the syrian president. but the syrian government denied the existence of the vehicles, saying the israeli planes bombed a research center near damascus. russia says the facts are not yet clear but adds that any air strike would be completely unacceptable. >> we are analyzing the information as we receive it. if the allegations are confirmed, then it is our position this is a serious breach of the united nations charter. this would be an unacceptable action against a sovereign government. >> the syrian media say two people were killed when israeli jets bombed the research center near damascus and five more injured. israel has not commented on the allegations, but the israeli government had warned syria this week that it would not accept any syrian weapons falling into the hands of hezbollah. israelis are concerned about the possibility of a chemical weapons attack. people have been stockpiling gas masks for months. >> i would rather actually use it as a warning sign, by which israel is warning bot
a potential of what was already a horrible, horrible situation if iran and syria, hezbollah, if they were to retaliate against israel, that would dramatically escalate what is already going on. >> reporter: certainly. very dangerous to make a prediction in this part of the world and given what is happening inside syria, particularly damascus on their back foot and perhaps prone to irrational responses. as we're seeing at the moment, most observers think that an overretaliation is unlikely. of course syria, its military heavily stretched by this civil war. particularly given how israel now denying any real involvement. hezbollah and a very delicate balance here. of course their military allied to the assad regime but they have a very cautious political role to play here. they don't want to get into a lengthy military issue with the israelis and, of course, iran. certainly leadership driven by division. many not quite sure what they could do. concerns about some sort of covert retaliation, how ever that may play out. people are waiting to see if this is vague and at times in the past 24 hou
, and by the way i have said on the record many times that hezbollah and hamas are terrorist groups, and i have said many times on the record that iran is a state sponsor of terrorism. i am committed to that. , for my last minute, with regard to afghanistan, we have heard your views, and you did not give a specific statement about how many, but will you in your capacity advises the president bush be drawing down trips sooner rather than later? >> i think he has made that pretty clear, that he wants to do that, and if i am confirmed, i will need to better understand all the dimensions of this. i do not know all those dimensions. i think there is little question -- and i support completely -- where the president wants to go completely in afghanistan, and his commitment to on wind that war. as we have said, there should be, there will be. he noted he will enforce a new policy, a new relationship based on limited objectives for our troops there, and i support that. >> my last question, that i will submit, obviously, the personnel of military is our most important asset, and when we hear reports the
hamas and hezbollah. senator hagel has been an outspoken supporter of nuclear disarmament and global 0 movement. we are very sensitive to that. the president has said many times that he wants a nuclear- free world, and i know that senator hagel is right there with him, but and a time when north korea's belligerent actions threaten our allies with nuclear capabilities, and the security of our own nation and that of our allies, why would we want to unilaterally disarm ourselves of nuclear capability? agelate, however, senator heg has expressed views in meetings with senate colleagues and i have been informed that they are glaringly at odds with long-held positions, but italy regarding israel, iran, and our nuclear -- particularly regarding israel, iran, and our nuclear arsenal. this willingness to walk back his positions, possibly for the sake of political expediency on input and issues, is deeply troubling, and sends a concerning message to our allies and adversaries alike. though i respect senator hagel, his record demonstrates that he would be a staunch advocate for the continuation o
that they were after some russian weapons that were advanced weapons that were heading to hezbollah and lebanon. what is your basic information? >> i think israel has legitimate security concerns that when there is the tumult you see and you already have seen syria could be part of assad's strategy to run things over the borders that, when you begin to see materials move, that could move from syria into lebanon and potentially into hezbollah's control, whether they're chemical or even well targeted rockets, various things, i think israel many consultation with the russians and the americans, had decide thad something was moving. you and i don't know what the content was. i was impressed with israel's willingness to consult with russians and the americans in this before they took their strike, so i believe that they have had a sense that something very nasty was being moved. >> is this a proxy against iran, and is this any kind of signal also since the weapons were possibly headed to hezbollah at least according to a lot of sources. is this also letting iran know, you know, that -- >> of course.
no longer has a convenient way of shuttling weapons to hezbollah, its shit militia in lebanon, and they go back to a world where it is iran, iraq an leban,asically as its shiite bastions and that is not in their interests, of course. and there is so much, you know, i mean it's hard to overemphasize the importance that like how goes syria so goes os region so to speak. i mean the shifting that balance in terms of to a sunni majority rule would have huge ripple affects for the entire region and iran is very nervous about that. >> so how is assad handling his own security? he saw his brother-ilaw d seralisop natiol security people in a bomb that took place inside what i would assume a safe area. so he had to say to himself they got -- there they could get here. one said he was sleeping in different places and all of that. >> i have heard so many rumors. he's living in latakia, he is sleeping on a naval ship. he is in the pal dferb -- palace, he is in a private apartment being moved around from place to place every night. i think what isn't clear, what people still -- -- because it's pretty op
strong position, iran, hamas, hezbollah, terrorists. that is why "the washington post" described your views near the fringe of the senate. that raises questions about you suitability to serve as the secretary of defense. in my view, having a secretary of defense who is not viewed as supporting credible strong military action makes it more likely that the united states will be drawn into military conflict. i think that would be an unfortunate outcome. thank you. >> thank you, senator cruz. that ends the second round. if you want an opportunity to comment on that, if not i will ask you other questions. in reaction to one of the things that you said, it doesn't matter what i believe -- it does matter. i think what you were pointing out that unfortunately, is what the president believes. i think that is what you were aiming at. >> that is exactly what i was aiming at and that is what i meant to say. thank you. >> i'm going to ask you the standard questions that i've delayed and these are just questions that we ask of every nominee. would you adhere the applications in regard to conflicts
Search Results 0 to 16 of about 17 (some duplicates have been removed)